News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[Chip Chipperson]

The Orlando Sentinel reports the 911 network contract with Figgers Communication has been canceled.

"Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Disney oversight district revealed Tuesday it had canceled a contract with a politically connected telecommunications entrepreneur’s company as scrutiny mounted over its decision not to open the project to competitive bids.

Earlier this month, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District authorized a $242,500 no-bid contract with Figgers Communication to help update its 911 network.

That company’s founder, Freddie Figgers, briefly served with Disney district administrator Glen Gilzean on the Florida Commission on Ethics. Both were appointed to the ethics board by DeSantis.

District officials said they would open the contract to bids at Figgers’ request and defended their rationale for wanting to expedite the project. WFTV first reported on the no-bid deal, putting a spotlight on the district’s decision to waive competitive bidding.

“They [Figgers Communication] do not wish to continue under the current atmosphere and wish to participate in a bidding process instead,” Matthew Oberly, the district’s director of external affairs, said Tuesday. “Which is unfortunate as now we will have to start over.”

In a letter to the district on Monday, Figgers requested an open bidding process to “err on the side of caution” and ensure the “best value” for taxpayers.

“We welcome the opportunity for an open bidding process and are confident that it will reveal that our proposal to implement the 911 wireless and VOIP emergency services was very reasonable, with no intention of taking advantage of the District,” Figgers wrote in the letter.

District officials say the contract is critical to fixing an issue with 911 calls going unanswered, and Figgers Communication was able to meet the compressed 120-day timeline."

Full article below.

As scrutiny mounts, DeSantis’ Disney district cancels no-bid 911 contract

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Disney oversight district canceled a contract Tuesday with a politically connected telecommunications entrepreneur’s company as scrutiny mounted over its decision not to op…

www.orlandosentinel.com

Well they wouldn't have to "start over" if they had just handled it the right way from the start. But it's no surprise that the Board is whining now that they've been called out on their shady actions.

 

[James Alucobond]

“They [Figgers Communication] do not wish to continue under the current atmosphere and wish to participate in a bidding process instead,” Matthew Oberly, the district’s director of external affairs, said Tuesday. “Which is unfortunate as now we will have to start over.”

"It is unfortunate that we will have to do what we're supposed to do."

 

[flynnibus]

Well they wouldn't have to "start over" if they had just handled it the right way from the start. But it's no surprise that the Board is whining now that they've been called out on their shady actions.

Then maybe the Orlando Sentinel should be hounding the District for comments about their procurement rules?

 

[Surferboy567]

Disney warns that if DeSantis wins lawsuit, others will be punished for 'disfavored' views

Disney claims its free speech rights were violated by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and is fighting him in federal court.

apnews.com

They are definitely right. This is a important case that can definitely set precedent.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Then maybe the Orlando Sentinel should be hounding the District for comments about their procurement rules?

But here's the thing: just because something may not violate a specific rule (and it seems like it may have based on what others have cited) doesn't mean that it was done ethically. Even if we play Devil's Advocate and accept their claims at face value that they needed to make this change and make it immediately so there was no time to seek bids, it is still extremely questionable that they quickly and quietly determined that the  only option just happened to be a company run by one of Gilzean's pals from his Ethics Commission days. The fact that Figgers recognized that he should step back and wait for a public bidding process indicates that his company is not the only company in the state that can handle the project, so how exactly did the Board immediately eliminate every other potential bidder? How could they determine that Figgers was the only one who could meet their timeline if they didn't give other companies the chance to show them how fast they could do it?

 

[LAKid53]

But here's the thing: just because something may not violate a specific rule (and it seems like it may have based on what others have cited) doesn't mean that it was done ethically. Even if we play Devil's Advocate and accept their claims at face value that they needed to make this change and make it immediately so there was no time to seek bids, it is still extremely questionable that they quickly and quietly determined that the  only option just happened to be a company run by one of Gilzean's pals from his Ethics Commission days. The fact that Figgers recognized that he should step back and wait for a public bidding process indicates that his company is not the only company in the state that can handle the project, so how exactly did the Board immediately eliminate every other potential bidder? How could they determine that Figgers was the only one who could meet their timeline if they didn't give other companies the chance to show them how fast they could do it?

BINGO

 

[flynnibus]

But here's the thing: just because something may not violate a specific rule (and it seems like it may have based on what others have cited) doesn't mean that it was done ethically.

I'm pointing out that the VERY RULEBOOK for the District as written and approved by the board has policies that violate the law according to posters here. Surely if that's the case, wouldn't it be drawing more attention from people looking to critique the new board?

Even if we play Devil's Advocate and accept their claims at face value that they needed to make this change and make it immediately so there was no time to seek bids, it is still extremely questionable that they quickly and quietly determined that the  only option just happened to be a company run by one of Gilzean's pals from his Ethics Commission days.

And as I said before about the ethically angle.. I said "The law allows for some crappy behavior. Is this just crappy behavior, or are they actually operating in a fashion in violation of the law?"

And let's not overstate this Ethics Commission line... Figgers was added to the EC only at the end of July. This contract situation was already playing basically at that time. So it's not like they shared years together on the EC. The common thread is the Florida GOP and DeSantis - not the EC.

The fact that Figgers recognized that he should step back and wait for a public bidding process indicates that his company is not the only company in the state that can handle the project, so how exactly did the Board immediately eliminate every other potential bidder?

Your logic doesn't fly there. Figgers' decision doesn't declare anything about what they think the competition can or can not do - only that a wimpy $242k deal isn't worth all the negativity. And maybe they can still get the deal anyways. The District can't force Figgers here.. so we don't even know if it was mutually agreed it would not be harmful to the District's intended goals.

How could they determine that Figgers was the only one who could meet their timeline if they didn't give other companies the chance to show them how fast they could do it?

Such dialog is possible without a formal bid. Plus, as the policy is written, they don't need to confirm a party is the only compatible party.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Wow how interesting, it’s almost as if they realized this looked UnuZoOal

 

[shawnm024]

I've traveled to Florida on numerous occasions for both business and pleasure. As long as DeSantis is governor, I won't return for any reason. He has zero chance of becoming President.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

And as I said before about the ethically angle.. I said "The law allows for some crappy behavior. Is this just crappy behavior, or are they actually operating in a fashion in violation of the law?"

And let's not overstate this Ethics Commission line... Figgers was added to the EC only at the end of July. This contract situation was already playing basically at that time. So it's not like they shared years together on the EC. The common thread is the Florida GOP and DeSantis - not the EC.

The Ethics Commission provides a direct link between the two. It's a much more solid connection to make than "both were appointed by the same person" because it is proof that they knew each other and worked together prior to the District awardi g the contract. That connection makes it harder for the District to defend itself should Disney present this situation as part of its argument in the court cases.

Your logic doesn't fly there. Figgers' decision doesn't declare anything about what they think the competition can or can not do - only that a wimpy $242k deal isn't worth all the negativity. And maybe they can still get the deal anyways. The District can't force Figgers here.. so we don't even know if it was mutually agreed it would not be harmful to the District's intended goals.

My logic is this: if Figgers's company was the only company that could perform the needed work then he would have said so. Instead, he backed away and requested that the Board seek public bids. It shoots a hole in the District's argument that his company was the only viable option.

Such dialog is possible without a formal bid. Plus, as the policy is written, they don't need to confirm a party is the only compatible party.

If the dialog took place then why didn't the District say so when questioned about it? When defending itself against the appearance of shady behavior, it makes no sense to withhold information that helps validate their argument. This Board has done nothing to merit receiving the benefit of the doubt, especially when they pull garbage like this after came out railing against "shady last-minute backroom deals" and claiming that this new setup would provide the transparency that RCID was supposedly lacking.

 

[tissandtully]

I've traveled to Florida on numerous occasions for both business and pleasure. As long as DeSantis is governor, I won't return for any reason. He has zero chance of becoming President.

There's still reasonable people left here and still fun stuff to do, DeSantis is temporary problem.

 

[flynnibus]

The Ethics Commission provides a direct link between the two. It's a much more solid connection to make than "both were appointed by the same person" because it is proof that they knew each other and worked together prior to the District awardi g the contract.

Knew each other is a long way from trust needed to conspire or motivation to benefit. Needs to be more there then ‘hey, met you at a bar last week, wanna throw me a kickback tomorrow while at the office?’

Both have a long history of being insiders for gop appointments before the ethics commission.

My logic is this: if Figgers's company was the only company that could perform the needed work then he would have said so. Instead, he backed away and requested that the Board seek public bids. It shoots a hole in the District's argument that his company was the only viable option.

That wasn’t the original justification. You’re omitting the critical point of time in your comparison. They stated the urgent need was based on time and ghe choice was based on the company’s willingness to commit to completing the work on the compressed schedule- not that they were the only company capable of doing the work. Big distinction there… the caveat of time. Obviously that schedule requirement is already compromised and likely different in a nee bid situation because of all thd time that has since elapsed.

If the dialog took place then why didn't the District say so when questioned about it? When defending itself against the appearance of shady behavior, it makes no sense to withhold information that helps validate their argument.

You act like there was some huge interrogation- you have a single published statement, not a back and forth. You should go back and read ghe claim in detail. I think you are summarizing and losing specifics.

This Board has done nothing to merit receiving the benefit of the doubt, especially when they pull garbage like this after came out railing against "shady last-minute backroom deals" and claiming that this new setup would provide the transparency that RCID was supposedly lacking.

It’s not about benefit of doubt - it’s about crossing hard lines. If you don’t have the clear line drawn, nor the clear view, then it’s just perceptions not facts.

 

[lewisc]

They stated the urgent need was based on time and ghe choice was based on the company’s willingness to commit to completing the work on the compressed schedule- not that they were the only company capable of doing the work.

Were they the only company willing to complete the work on the compressed schedule? Weren't they the only company contacted period?

It’s not about benefit of doubt - it’s about crossing hard lines. If you don’t have the clear line drawn, nor the clear view, then it’s just perceptions not facts.

DeSantis, and his cronies on the board, have made numerous references to prior board, close relationship with WDW. All but accusing them of corruption. In this context even appearances matter.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Knew each other is a long way from trust needed to conspire or motivation to benefit. Needs to be more there then ‘hey, met you at a bar last week, wanna throw me a kickback tomorrow while at the office?’

Both have a long history of being insiders for gop appointments before the ethics commission.

It's not an "either/or" situation. The fact that they worked together means they had more of a relationship than just "met at a bar last week." Adding in the DeSantis connection only adds to the problem - and potentially aids Disney’s arguments in both the federal and FL lawsuits since they can add it to the list of things done to them in retaliation for exercising their free speech AND possibly bolster their arguments for maintaining the so-called "shady last-minute backroom deal" they made before the new board took over because it is now apparent that the new Board is willing to hook up their pals with no-bid contracts at the taxpayers' (but mostly Disney’s) expense.

That wasn’t the original justification. You’re omitting the critical point of time in your comparison. They stated the urgent need was based on time and ghe choice was based on the company’s willingness to commit to completing the work on the compressed schedule- not that they were the only company capable of doing the work. Big distinction there… the caveat of time. Obviously that schedule requirement is already compromised and likely different in a nee bid situation because of all thd time that has since elapsed.


You act like there was some huge interrogation- you have a single published statement, not a back and forth. You should go back and read ghe claim in detail. I think you are summarizing and losing specifics.

They gave no indication that they asked other companies about a possible timeline at all. When Figgers backed out of the deal and Board members commented, there was no claim to having completed any sort of search to see who could do it best/fastest. Either they did a search and didn't find it worth mentioning (which raises the question of why they don't want to share that information) or they didn't do a search at all and immediately went with their pal.

It’s not about benefit of doubt - it’s about crossing hard lines. If you don’t have the clear line drawn, nor the clear view, then it’s just perceptions not facts.

And who created that perception? The same Board members who railed against alleged corruption with the old RCID setup (and provided no examples). Suddenly they say they need to change their 911 system and it is just pure coincidence that they sought no bids, chose the firm of their pal who worked with Gilzean and was appointedby the same guy who appointed them, and canceled their next Board meeting when word got out about the contract. Silly me for questioning this.

 

[peter11435]

DeSantis is temporary problem.

and looking increasingly temporary

 

[mkt]

DeSantis is temporary problem.

DeSantis is a temporary problem. But the CFTOD isn't unless the legislature puts forward legislation undoing this mess.

People forget, this is due to a law - not an executive order. Quickest fix is that someone with functioning brain cells becomes governor and assigns qualified people to control the CFTOD. Best solution is the law gets struck and RCID returns from the ashes.

 

[GrumpyFan]

In the midst of this ongoing discussion over ethics and irresponsible decisions made by Desantis' CTFOD board, there was a new Memorandum file by Disney's lawyers in Opposition to the State's Motion to Dismiss.
In the Memorandum, they made the case for why Disney has legal standing to sue the cited Defendants.

Disney plausibly alleges that the Governor is affirmatively using his control
over the District to implement his oft-declared goal of punishing Disney for
disfavored speech and controlling its future political comments and entertainment
choices. By announcing that the District henceforth would be “state-controlled”
and a “state receivership,” the Governor and his allies made abundantly clear that
the Governor—the self-proclaimed “new sheriff in town”—would be functionally
in charge of the new weaponized bureaucracy.

In the Governor’s view, corporations must remain “merely economic actors”
that do not “become political,” and if they “cross the line” by publicly disagreeing
with official state doctrine, government leaders are free to weaponize official state
powers to punish and control their speech. Second Amended Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ¶¶ 47, 89, ECF No. 87 (“SAC”). The merits of
that remarkable position are addressed in Disney’s opposition to the broader
motion to dismiss filed by the CFTOD Defendants and joined by the State
Defendants. See Opp. to CFTOD Mot. to Dismiss 3-4, 17-32.
The State Defendants’ own motion addresses a distinct but related point.
Having publicly boasted about orchestrating a secret plan to punish Disney for its
comments on public affairs and to exercise continuing control over its
entertainment programming, the Governor now seeks desperately to avoid any
official responsibility for those acts. According to the Governor, his connection to
the state’s ongoing efforts to regulate Disney’s speech is analogous to comments
from a “lobbyist” voicing support for new laws. That assertion is farcical, as
anyone vaguely familiar with Florida government will readily recognize. More
importantly, it is directly contrary to the SAC’s allegations, which are assumed
true at this stage. On the facts alleged in SAC, the Governor and the Secretary of
Commerce are proper defendants who can and must be held liable in their official
capacities for the executive functions they perform in implementing the State’s
anti-Disney speech-control program.

Additionally, to help support their arguments, mention was made of Universal's new district.

In repeated public comments, the Governor declared that the laws do not
injure Disney because they simply make the company subject to the same
regulatory structure applicable to all other Florida businesses, thereby creating a
“level playing field.” That contention is an outright falsehood. In fact, a special
district was established just this month to regulate the land encompassing
Universal’s new Epic Universe theme park in Orange County—with its inaugural
board of supervisors comprising only Universal employees. See Ariel Zilber,
Universal Studios Gets Special Tax District After DeSantis Took It Away From
Disney, N.Y. POST (Oct. 13, 2023, 2:59 P.M.), https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/
universal-studios-gets-special-tax-district-after-desantis-stripped-disney/. Further,
most businesses and other property owners in Florida are regulated by elected,
politically-accountable municipal bodies. Few Florida businesses are subject, as
Disney now is, to governance by a special district with a Governor-controlled
board that closely regulates the use of private property with no accountability to
local property owners and taxpayers. In any event, what matters with respect to
the pending motion to dismiss is that the challenged laws indisputably eliminate
Disney’s rights and impose new burdens, thereby creating an injury-in-fact.

You can read the full memo here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/98/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

 

[Disney Analyst]

In the midst of this ongoing discussion over ethics and irresponsible decisions made by Desantis' CTFOD board, there was a new Memorandum file by Disney's lawyers in Opposition to the State's Motion to Dismiss.
In the Memorandum, they made the case for why Disney has legal standing to sue the cited Defendants.



Additionally, to help support their arguments, mention was made of Universal's new district.

I think this new district UO just got could bite CTFOD and the Governor in the behind.

 

[GrumpyFan]

A new Amicus brief was also filed the same day (Oct 30), in support of Disney's position by The Leadership Now Project.
Their brief focused on the impact to business and the economy imposed by a governmental agency that retaliates to protected speech in opposition to the government.

They made several arguments in opposition to government backed retaliation against businesses.

I. Government Retaliation Against Businesses Threatens Basic Tenets of
the American Marketplace and Economic Success.

A. Government Retaliation Jeopardizes Economic Growth and Deters
Investment, Especially When It Interferes with Settled Expectations.

B. Government Retaliation Hinders Businesses’ Ability to Determine
How to Respond to Customer, Employee, and Shareholder Interests.

Government retaliation or threatened retaliation against businesses solely for
what they may or may not say undermines the free market’s success by replacing
accountability and consistency with uncertainty and instability. If parties cannot
trust the government to recognize and enforce their contracts and other
commitments, parties will limit their business dealings or be forced to protect their
investment through other means, such as arbitration, which may drive up the cost of
innovation. And if the government can punish businesses for the actions they take
or the statements they make in response to interests of customers, employees, or
shareholders, it necessarily hinders the exercise of business judgment that is key to
competition.

Additionally, they cited a rise in government retaliation against business for exercising their Constitutionally protected free speech and the impacts it creates.

II. Recent Increase in Government Retaliation Against Businesses for
Their Constitutionally Protected Speech Chills Businesses’
Responsiveness to Customer, Employee, and Shareholder Interests
and Related Speech, Harming Economic Potential and Growth.

A. Government Retaliation Creates a Chilling Effect on Business
Responsiveness And Related Speech.

B. Government Retaliation Compounds Political Risk for
Businesses, Which Can Lead to Capital Flight and Undermine
Economic Potential and Growth.

The impact of the Florida government’s retaliation against Disney for its
constitutionally protected speech extends far beyond the specific facts of this case.
It also chills incalculable investment by intimidating American businesses into
silence. And that necessarily infringes on the ability of American businesses to
exercise their business judgment to respond to the interests of their customers,
employees, and shareholders. All of this undermines economic growth by hindering
competition, discouraging innovation, and irrevocably altering the fundamental
practices of American businesses that have contributed profoundly to creating a
robust and growing economy.

You can read the full brief here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/99/1/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

 

[MrPromey]

Were they the only company willing to complete the work on the compressed schedule? Weren't they the only company contacted period?

DeSantis, and his cronies on the board, have made numerous references to prior board, close relationship with WDW. All but accusing them of corruption. In this context even appearances matter.

And of course, the eye-rolling part is, as their main constituent of consequence by an insane margin, it made sense for them to have a close working relationship with WDW since their entire body was created to serve them to begin with.

There's nothing sleazy or underhanded about that. Isn't that what everyone wants from their own local governing body - someone who will listen to them and address their concerns?

When did that become something tawdry other than when DeSantis (and his hand-picked board) suggested with implications but no facts that something illicit was going on?

It's weird how our governor has made replacing a body elected by the "community" it serves that worked with and represented the needs and goals of said "community" with one that the "community" has no say over and who is combative and openly hostile towards them and then tried to say it's somehow in anybody's interests.

Quite a bellwether for how that governor would handle anyone he has a beef with or feels slighted by in our country as president...

This board has had plenty of opportunities to extend the olive branch and develop a working relationship with Disney and has at every turn, chosen a contrary direction, seemingly out of pure spite or a desire to show "who's boss" while forgetting or ignoring that government in this country exists to serve those it governs - not the other way around.